D&D 5E Why is animate dead considered inherently evil?

[Tolerable Tyrant]

I'm having a troublesome time understanding why the animate dead spell is considered evil. When I read the manual it states that the spall imbues the targeted corpse with a foul mimicry of life, implying that the soul is not a sentient being who is trapped in a decaying corpse. Rather, the spell does exactly what its title suggests, it only animates the corps. Now of course one could use the spell to create zombies that would hunt and kill humans, but by that same coin, they could create a labor force that needs no form of sustenance (other than for the spell to be recast of course). There have also been those who have said "the spell is associated with the negative realm which is evil", however when you ask someone why the negative realm is bad that will say "because it is used for necromancy", I'm sure you can see the fallacy in this argument.

However, I must take into account that I have only looked into the DnD magic system since yesterday so there are likely large gaps in my knowledge. PS(Apon further reflection I've decided that the animate dead spell doesn't fall into the school of necromancy, as life is not truly given to the corps, instead I believe this would most likely fall into the school of transmutation.) PPS(I apologize for my sloppy writing, I've decided I'm feeling too lazy to correct it.)

 

[Maxperson]

So in this thread we learn that longswords and fireballs are inherently evil. Cool.

And that people will twist what people are saying in order to be "right."

 

[Mort]

Do you know what also directly harms people? Hitting them with a longsword! Longswords are evil, man! If you have ever rolled an attack roll, you're evil!

As @Maxperson said, if the longsword is intelligent and compels (or even just influences) its wielder to kill? That's the comparison and then, yes, it's evil.

We're not debating whether the undead are evil (they 100% are, because the book says so) but the summoner.

 

[James Gasik]

The Red Slaad is Chaotic Neutral with a 6 Intelligence.

It wasn't all that long ago that a 6 Intelligence Orc Barbarian was a legal PC choice. Are we saying that leaving the party's Barbarian unattended was an act of Evil?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As @Maxperson said, if the longsword is intelligent and compels (or even just influences) its wielder to kill? That's the comparison and then, yes, it's evil.

We're not debating whether the undead are evil (they 100% are, because the book says so) but the summoner.

Max listed bunch of other necromancy spells that can be used against people and said they directly harm people. Same as longswords.

 

[Mort]

A Red Slaad is Chaotic Neutral.

No they are listed as chaotic neutral, likely as some weird legacy listing. But their description says they kill and impregnate everyone in their path - that's evil.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The Red Slaad is Chaotic Neutral with a 6 Intelligence.

It wasn't all that long ago that a 6 Intelligence Orc Barbarian was a legal PC choice. Are we saying that leaving the party's Barbarian unattended was an act of Evil?

Of course! A barbarian could kill people, thus letting them unattended would obviously be evil!

 

[Mort]

Max listed bunch of other necromancy spells that can be used against people and said they directly harm people. Same as longswords.

The list was because someone else claimed Necromancy only caused "indirect" harm - a verifiably incorrect claim. It was not about saying the spell is evil.

 

[Maxperson]

So our sole guideline is the PHB line "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal." That seems pretty firm (not "prefer not to", not "won't unless it's an emergency..." etc.). What does that actually mean? Well, it seems left to the DM. So the DM, if he thinks Druids might play a role in the campaign (especially as PCs), should decide. Heck in a game where nature plays an active role and Druids can commune with it? Wearing metal armor, even once, could mean - all powers stripped.

There are no mechanical consequences by default. I'd imagine that the DM would, unless he was an arse, tell the player before the class is chosen about any consequences he has added in. But yes, the sole guidance we are given is that it's a choice that the druids make.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No they are listed as chaotic neutral, likely as some weird legacy listing. But their description says they kill and impregnate everyone in their path - that's evil.

No it's not. Alignment says that they're neutral, and as alignment is an useful mechanic, we should trust it.

 

[Mort]

The Red Slaad is Chaotic Neutral with a 6 Intelligence.

It wasn't all that long ago that a 6 Intelligence Orc Barbarian was a legal PC choice. Are we saying that leaving the party's Barbarian unattended was an act of Evil?

If the barbarian likes to kill, pillage and rape everything around him? I know this, teleport him to a town I happen to not like and let him loose. Then yes.